Teleconference 24 September 2012
Present: Kevin Marsh (ALIA/JSC Rep), Ebe Kartus (ALIA), Catherine Argus (NLA/Chair), Robert Walls (NLA), Anne Robertson (EPC Representative),
Jenny Stephens (Minutes)
Apologies: David Wells (ALIA)
Start time: 2:00 pm (EST)
Welcome and apologies
Apologies from David.
Minutes of previous meeting and business arising
Minutes were accepted.
Ebe advised that she would post drafts of ALA/20, BL/9 and CCC/7 by tomorrow morning.
ACOC Draft Responses to JSC Proposals
Accepted pending the removal of the paragraph regarding the use of “for selection”
ACOC agreed to the following changes to Deirdre’s draft of ALA 19:
- At Discussion point 3 – request clarification or definition of “insular area”, perhaps in the Glossary of RDA, as this terminology may be unfamiliar outside the US.
- At Discussion point 4 – indicate our preference for a consistent application of qualifiers to names of places, rather than the use of options. This should be made clear in the introductory paragraph as well.
- At Discussion point 5 – re-word response to emphasise our belief in the importance of the process to eliminate abbreviation where possible.
The following changes to Deirdre’s draft response were agreed to:
- Paragraph 2 - Remove last sentence
- Paragraph 3 – change to say we DO want to include type of date information
- Ask for clarification on process to be followed in assigning dates, particularly whether multiple dates are recorded and if date should be changed if a more preferred date is later found.
Draft responses to the following proposals were endorsed
The following proposals were discussed and assigned to ACOC members to respond.
ACOC supports intent of proposal, but agreed with LC’s idea of putting change in carrier type as an instruction, rather than an exception at 220.127.116.11, but suggest it should be in a separate instruction to changes in media type.
Agreed with LC’s suggestion to retain exception at 18.104.22.168
While there was some support for this discussion paper from music cataloguers consulted, ACOC identified a number of issues with it:
- The distinction of composer vs. Non-composer is too arbitrary. It was felt that whether or not an arrangement can be considered a new work is not predicated by whether or not the arranger is a composer. It might also be difficult for a cataloguer to know whether or not the arranger is a composer.
- It was suggested that the decision about when an arrangement might be considered a new work may be adequately covered by 22.214.171.124
- It was questioned whether this discussion paper would be more appropriately directed towards FRBR, not RDA.
- The section on inexplicit relationships did not appear to provide a helpful solution to the issues raised.
To be discussed at the next teleconference.
Other JSC matters
Kevin drew attention to some recent emails from JSC and asked if there was any comment.
RDA Music Interest Group
ACOC had no further comment on this
Proposal to amend RDA to say that all online resources should be considered to be published.
ACOC agreed to discuss this at the next teleconference.
Assistance with proofreading of re-writes
ACOC agreed that they do not have the resources to assist with this.
The next teleconference is scheduled for 2 October at 3.30pm.
Meeting closed 3:40 pm.